It's sounds wierd, but it seems to work. Unfortunately, prior art from the U.S. colonization may invalidate the patent.Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:36:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fretinator)CommentsNot surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482299
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482299This isn't really a surprise. I suppose Amazon and the others should be grateful that Apple lets them play in their playground at all.

I don't know what's the more remarkable - the ease with which Apple can treat another company like their bitch, or the queue of companies willing to be Apple's bitch.

Of course, this is the real world and business is business, but still... wow.Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:15:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Athlander)CommentsAnd how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482309
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482309And how would Amazon treat Apple? Do you really think that Amazon would let Apple create a bookstore on their Kindle with links back to Apple so that Amazon got zero profit on books bought through an iBook for Amazon store?

If you think they would, I have ocean front property in Iowa that I'd love to sell you.

What about Google? Would they start letting Apple place ads on Google pages that Apple gets paid for but not Google?

If you do, I'll sell you more of the waterfront land in Iowa.Edited 2011-07-26 23:14 UTCTue, 26 Jul 2011 23:10:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Sabon)CommentsRE: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482312
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482312

What about Google? Would they start letting Apple place ads on Google pages that Apple gets paid for but not Google?

Well, I don't believe Google places the same kind of restrictions on their app store that Apple does, in that they don't demand that all apps MUST have purchases done inside the app so that Google gets a cut. So yeah, in this case, Apple is the more 'evil' of the two.

The author of this piece is right... the ones that suffer the most from this is iOS users, which is really dumb, when you consider that app developers are just removing purchasing options altogether (as opposed to paying the Apple tax), so it's not like Apple is going to accomplish anything out of this, except pissing off its customers.Edited 2011-07-26 23:29 UTCTue, 26 Jul 2011 23:28:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (WorknMan)CommentsRE: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482324
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482324It's very telling that every comment BUT yours has high moderation despite the fact that your link is the only one that offers a sense of reason. I gave you a point. Enjoy it while you can.Edited 2011-07-27 00:29 UTCWed, 27 Jul 2011 00:28:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Jennimc)CommentsRE: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482333
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482333Except Amazon doesn't have a device as robust and app-friendly as the iOS devices (yet; I know they are rumored to have an Android tablet on the way). We can't pass judgement on them until we see what they do.

As for Google...as others have pointed out, they do indeed allow such things as in-app purchases via third party payment processors, in-app account management, and in-app links and ads by the app publisher. Anyone with an Android device can attest to that. Not only that, you don't even have to use Google's Android Market app store if you don't want to. Amazon's app store works great and has an amazing selection (and free paid apps daily), and there are other app stores too. With iOS, short of jailbreaking you are locked in to Apple's store and the limitations that come with it.

I've always been a big fan of Apple's OSes (and their hardware to a lesser extent) but their business practices have always rubbed me the wrong way. This is becoming ridiculous. I know what you might say, that it's their App Store and they have a right to do what they want with it, including heavy-handed restrictions. And you would be right; as they are not a monopoly they can get away with a few anti-competitive things for now. And with the strong and growing presence of Android, I doubt iOS will ever be the dominant mobile platform. In the end, this will only hurt the consumers first, and Apple second.Edited 2011-07-27 01:10 UTCWed, 27 Jul 2011 01:08:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Morgan)CommentsRE: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482334
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482334

And how would Amazon treat Apple? Do you really think that Amazon would let Apple create a bookstore on their Kindle with links back to Apple so that Amazon got zero profit on books bought through an iBook for Amazon store?

If you think they would, I have ocean front property in Iowa that I'd love to sell you.

What about Google? Would they start letting Apple place ads on Google pages that Apple gets paid for but not Google?

If you do, I'll sell you more of the waterfront land in Iowa.

Way to try and create a straw man argument there. The fact is these same apps are available on Android, so we know exactly how Google would react in the same situation. It's quite different than the path Apple chose.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 01:42:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (smitty)CommentsRE[2]: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482338
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482338I think you confuse "sense of reason" with "in my opinion".Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:27:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender)CommentsRE[3]: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482354
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482354No, I meant what I said.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:33:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Jennimc)CommentsRE[2]: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482356
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482356I would rather Amazon concentrate on the Kindle which is pretty ACE ... Going to buy one as soon as I can afford one.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:00:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus)CommentsComment by moondevilhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482357
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482357It only goes to show how dark the computing age would be if Apple would be in charge.

I like their products. MacOS X (NextStep actually) is a very nice operating system.

But if I look at how Apple behaves, I am glad it doesn't own that much products in the IT world.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:33:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (moondevil)CommentsComment by shmerlhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482362
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482362Apple is paranoid and twisted.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:20:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (shmerl)Commentsnothing to do with lodsys?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482363
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482363Maybe this has something to do with Lodsys?Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:21:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (broken_symlink)CommentsThis is SO hardhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482366
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482366Wow, as an iPhone user I am so frustrated. This is SOOO hard. I have to use a web browser (Safari, Firefox, iCab/whatever I have installed on my iPhone) to buy a book on the Kindle/Nook/whatever website, and then when I launch my Kindle/Nook/whatever application that book is magically there so I can read it. Wow! That was so hard to do! I feel so hobbled and my apps are so crippled that they just almost do not function at all any more. The iPhone is going DOWN because of this, I just know it.

Good grief, people, when I woke up this morning the planet was still turning, despite this horrible thing happening. Amazing.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:00:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (wocowboy)CommentsRE: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482368
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482368

This isn't really a surprise. I suppose Amazon and the others should be grateful that Apple lets them play in their playground at all.

I don't know what's the more remarkable - the ease with which Apple can treat another company like their bitch, or the queue of companies willing to be Apple's bitch.

Even more remarkable is the ease with which Apple can treat customers as their bitch. I have an iPhone and an iPad, but d*mmit Apple, these are my devices, and would like to have a button to the Kindle store in the Kindle app.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:12:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (danieldk)CommentsRE: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482374
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482374WAIT...

And you are actually ok with this, because someone else might do the same.....Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Slambert666)CommentsHTML5?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482375
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482375There is no such thing as a HTML5 compatible device. Not iOS, not anything else. HTML5 is not finished, and no browser is even close to implementing even half of it.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:55:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Carewolf)CommentsRE: HTML5?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482376
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482376

There is no such thing as a HTML5 compatible device. Not iOS, not anything else. HTML5 is not finished, and no browser is even close to implementing even half of it.

I suppose Amazon and the others should be grateful that Apple lets them play in their playground at all.

Why should they be grateful? Any other handset would welcome those updates with open arms so Apple are clearly abusing their position.

In fact I think Amazon et al have grounds to complain about anti-competitive practices. The only sticking point would be whether handset market share is critical - what with iOS devices not being nearly as dominant as Apple like to publicise.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:56:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)CommentsRE: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482391
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482391

And how would Amazon treat Apple? Do you really think that Amazon would let Apple create a bookstore on their Kindle with links back to Apple so that Amazon got zero profit on books bought through an iBook for Amazon store?

AFAIK you're not locked into Amazons book store on the Kindle. Thus you could download from Apples online portals and equally have links in books that reference back to Apple.

What about Google? Would they start letting Apple place ads on Google pages that Apple gets paid for but not Google?

Why not. It's been proven time and time again that Google Market is very loosely (too loosely in fact) moderated.

Furthermore, you're not locked into Google's Market on Android. In fact Amazon (for example) already have their own Android repository.

If you think they would, I have ocean front property in Iowa that I'd love to sell you.

If you do, I'll sell you more of the waterfront land in Iowa.

Given you've been wrong on both counts, can I assume that you're also wrong about having a property for sale :pWed, 27 Jul 2011 12:02:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)CommentsRE[2]: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482395
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482395

It's very telling that every comment BUT yours has high moderation despite the fact that your link is the only one that offers a sense of reason. I gave you a point. Enjoy it while you can.

Are you reading the same comment as everyone else?

His comment not only lacked any links, but his arguments are also very easily disproved (not that he even made any concrete arguments; it was mostly speculation)Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:10:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)CommentsShamefulhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482401
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482401It really is a shame. I love my iPod Nano. The only sticking point so far is that I am [more or less] saddled to iTunes. The way Apple has been behaving lately I'm seriously going to have to reconsider buying any of their products. I've already boycotted Sony. I guess adding Apple to the mix won't hurt me too much.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:57:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Drunkula)CommentsRE[3]: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482402
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482402I bought a Kindle for my girlfriend a few months ago, and as an e-book reader they are very nice. In fact, I'd say they are the one to beat in the standalone reader market, and they intentionally left out flashy features so there is no distraction from reading your books.

I have a friend with a Nook Color, and while he did buy it with the intention of using it as a cheap Android tablet, I couldn't imagine using it for its original intent. All the notifications and the poor battery life (compared to the Kindle) would be too much of a distraction from reading. I know this because I try to use my Android phone as an e-book reader and it happens to me. I just can't stay focused on the content.

I'm waiting for the new Kindles to come out so I can get one of the current generation for $99 (if that rumor pans out anyway).Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:14:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Morgan)CommentsApplehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482403
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482403Feel the competition power! Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:36:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Dr-ROX)CommentsRE: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482404
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482404

And how would Amazon treat Apple? Do you really think that Amazon would let Apple create a bookstore on their Kindle with links back to Apple so that Amazon got zero profit on books bought through an iBook for Amazon store?

Durr, last I checked the Kindle's an ebook reader & not a general-purpose tablet or smartphone that runs 3rd party apps.

Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but Amazon will happily sell you an iPad and they don't seem to care that they don't get a cut of any "iBook" sales that happen as a result.

What about Google?

What about them? I doubt they'd give two shits if Apple decided to release a fullblown Android version of the iTunes store... or hell, a version OF Android with the iTunes store integrated into it. A far cry from the "waaaah, it's our sandbox and we're going to tweak the rules endlessly so we get our way" BS that Apple loves.

Would they start letting Apple place ads on Google pages that Apple gets paid for but not Google?

Probably not... too bad that isn't at all analogous to Apple's actions here. Clearly you started that paragraph to make a comparison with Android, then realized how badly Apple would look in that comparison, and posted some non-sequitur BS about ads instead.

If you do, I'll sell you more of the waterfront land in Iowa.

Oh, hyuck, hyuck, hyuck. Don't quit your day job, Chuckles.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:43:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (BallmerKnowsBest)CommentsAmazon forces publishers to cripple priceshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482407
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482407I know it's popular to hate Apple now a days, because they're making headlines ( I certainly don't agree with what they're doing here, though it is their choice and If I don't like it I can go elsewhere ). I don't even remember the last time I felt the need to hate M$, since they barely do anything anymore ( Besides their Android "Licensing" nonsense ). However, when it comes to eBook publishing Apple is the publishing industry's hero. Do any of you actually know what how Amazon treats us? "Apple takes 30% of everything we sell!". Boy do I feel sorry for you. Oh wait, I don't. That's because Amazon takes 70% of all books priced over $9.99, which most of ours are. Let's do math. If I sell a book for $9.99 then i get $7, that's fine. However, if I sell a book for $10.99 I get $3.30! Obviously, I would never sell at $10.99. So when does it change? Well I'd have to sell a book for a little over $23 to get the same royalty as I would for selling the same book for $9.99. Luckily, we have a choice and can sell the books that need to cost over $9.99 on iTunes and those that don't will be sold on both.

PS. If you're one of those people who think that eBooks should cost almost nothing because there's no printing ( wow a whole dollar ), shipping or storage then you should go talk to that guy selling property in Iowa. Too many people think eBooks must have no costs associated with project managers, artists, copy editors, proof readers, indexers, typesetters, and author royalties.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:39:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ccraig13)CommentsRE[4]: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482410
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482410

I bought a Kindle for my girlfriend a few months ago, and as an e-book reader they are very nice. In fact, I'd say they are the one to beat in the standalone reader market, and they intentionally left out flashy features so there is no distraction from reading your books.

I have a friend with a Nook Color, and while he did buy it with the intention of using it as a cheap Android tablet, I couldn't imagine using it for its original intent. All the notifications and the poor battery life (compared to the Kindle) would be too much of a distraction from reading. I know this because I try to use my Android phone as an e-book reader and it happens to me. I just can't stay focused on the content.

That's kind of an apples (NPI) and oranges comparison. Take a look at Nook Touch (Nook 2) vs. kindle and the nook comes out pretty well. Which is why I have one.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:55:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (MattPie)CommentsRE[2]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482412
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482412

I have an iPhone and an iPad, but d*mmit Apple, these are my devices, and would like to have a button to the Kindle store in the Kindle app.

It just goes to show that in fact they are NOT your devices. Apple is simply leasing them to you.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:19:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (kenji)CommentsRE[2]: HTML5?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482415
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482415Sure.. okay, but the word HTML5 is still annoyingly overused. I predict a lot of confusion from the misuse of the concept.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:49:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Carewolf)CommentsRE: Amazon forces publishers to cripple priceshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482416
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482416

If you're one of those people who think that eBooks should cost almost nothing because there's no printing ( wow a whole dollar ), shipping or storage then you should go talk to that guy selling property in Iowa. Too many people think eBooks must have no costs associated with project managers, artists, copy editors, proof readers, indexers, typesetters, and author royalties.

I have no objection to paying a fair price for an ebook. I do object with being charged the price of a hardback for an ebook. Yes there are project managers, artists, copy editors, proof readers, indexers, typesetters, and author royalties. The discount should come from the lack of printing costs, distrubition costs and so on... You cant just claim you are due the same figure for an ebook becuse the costs are not the same. (I am not saying the costs are zero as that would be stupid)Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:56:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (nirishdave)CommentsRE[5]: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482417
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482417Hmmm. Looking at B&N's Nook comparison page, it seems there are really no advantages over the Kindle apart from memory expansion and battery life, and a few shortcomings (no 3G internet, no audio books, no landscape support). Given the comparable price, I think it comes down to personal preference rather than "one is better than the other".

As a pure reading device, I maintain that the Kindle (and the Nook Touch for that matter) are far better than any "do everything" tablet like the Nook Color or any other Android based phones/tablets. You get a Kindle or other e-ink unit to read, not to play games or browse the web or check your email.

Anyway, I got her what she wanted, not what I wanted her to have. If she had wanted a Nook Touch she would have gotten one.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:56:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Morgan)CommentsRE[3]: HTML5?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482425
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482425...I don't get it :$Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:50:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (righard)CommentsFalse argumenthttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482426
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482426"What's interesting about this is that Apple is specifically doing this to block competing content stores, further forcing people to use iTunes, and locking them into it even more"

No. Any competitor can make a web app that is not controlled nor distributed by Apple and does not require iTunes.

I walk into Target, I don't see Walmart placing advertising there and selling their wares in the Target store.

I walk into a Honda dealer, and Ford isn't there selling their cars.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:50:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ezylstra)CommentsRE: Shamefulhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482428
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482428You are not required to buy your music on iTunes to load it onto your iPod.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:52:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ezylstra)CommentsRE[2]: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482430
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482430"the ones that suffer the most from this is iOS users"

And where would these users be without Apple and their products. Do you remember the world before iPhone? There would not be an Android without iPhone.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:54:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ezylstra)CommentsRE[2]: Shamefulhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482432
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482432

You are not required to buy your music on iTunes to load it onto your iPod.

I'm well aware of that.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:08:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Drunkula)CommentsRE: This is SO hardhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482436
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482436

Wow, as an iPhone user I am so frustrated. This is SOOO hard. I have to use a web browser (Safari, Firefox, iCab/whatever I have installed on my iPhone) to buy a book on the Kindle/Nook/whatever website, and then when I launch my Kindle/Nook/whatever application that book is magically there so I can read it. Wow! That was so hard to do! I feel so hobbled and my apps are so crippled that they just almost do not function at all any more.

The iPhone is going DOWN because of this, I just know it.

Sweet merciful crap, get some new material already. If you're going to rely so heavily on obviously fallacious arguments, at least try for some variety instead of ALWAYS resorting to reductio ad absurdum & hand-waving melodrama.

Good grief, people, when I woke up this morning the planet was still turning, despite this horrible thing happening. Amazing.

So the only problems that matter are those that literally impede the planet's rotation? Congrats, you've just preemptively invalidated nearly every complaint you could ever possibly make... about anything.

(See? Two can play at the "ridiculously stupid exaggerations" game.)Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:17:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (BallmerKnowsBest)CommentsRE[2]: Amazon forces publishers to cripple priceshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482439
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482439I agree and we always sell our eBooks for less than the cost of our print editions.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:21:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ccraig13)CommentsRE[6]: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482443
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482443And, really, that is the important thing, am I right?

:)Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:46:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (senshikaze)CommentsRE[2]: This is SO hardhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482444
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482444TBH, he was just pointing out the work around was soo fucking easy that Thom had blown it out of proportion ...

Yay ... anyone who makes anti apple comments gets voted up for shit like "Apple is twisted" ... however someone does a little sarcasm and makes light of it and they get down modded to hell.

"And where would these users be without Apple and their products. Do you remember the world before iPhone? There would not be an Android without iPhone."

Nonsense!

Would you say "there would be no personal computers without microsoft"?

The personal computing revolution was the result of a combination of things: increasing purchasing power of the consumer, discovery of new CPU fabrication techniques, dropping electronics prices, good education, long term investment, etc. Microsoft was a product of it's environment more than the other way around. As much as MS enjoys having been there to take the credit, the personal computing revolution would have arrived whether or not they were on board.

In the same sense, apple products are a product of today's environment as well. Don't forget that apple's first tablets 1.5 decades ago were a total flop.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad apple's here to the extent that more competition is better. But as controversial as it may seem to some, the tech world doesn't rotate around apple. All else being equal, had apple gone under in the dot com bubble, there's absolutely no reason to think that others would be unable to bring tablet computers to the masses today.

With apple out of the picture, former apple fanatics would need some other entity to latch onto. Conceivably that could be google.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:17:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Alfman)CommentsRE[3]: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482453
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482453

And where would these users be without Apple and their products. Do you remember the world before iPhone? There would not be an Android without iPhone.

Apple was just the first to take use of the new hardware that was coming commercially available at the time (touch screens, mobile gpus, faster cpus). Without Apple, someone else would have been first.

As it stands, it looks like Apple invented everything, but in reality they have very little stake in designing the hardware that runs it all. Kudos to Apple for making it a nice software package, but they hardly deserve all the credit.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:31:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (vivainio)CommentsRE[3]: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482462
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482462The pioneer in this field was Palm. Think of those first Palms - a home screen with rows of icons, touch screens, gestures to write. Apple merely polished things, which they are very good at. The innovation award goes to Palm. Everyone is still copying them. It is a shame what happened to the company. The lost their way around version 5.0 of the OS. My last Palm, the Centro, was a wonderful device. Sony was the real pioneer in bringing multimedia capabilities to PalmOS devices. Their line of Clie devices caused everyone to rethink the PDA. How quickly people forget.

ps - I think Handspring also brought innvovation in terms of storage cards and the Visor phone.Edited 2011-07-27 20:17 UTCWed, 27 Jul 2011 20:15:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fretinator)CommentsI have an Apple fetishhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482463
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482463Steve can beat me all night and I'll pay him big bucks so long as he wears that sexy white latex corset!Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:39:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Vinegar Joe)CommentsRE[3]: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482464
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482464

And where would these users be without Apple and their products.

They'd have a life?Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:42:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Vinegar Joe)CommentsComment by OldTimeyJunkhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482478
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482478If I was a developer of mobile applications, I would never choose Apple.
You have to pay a overpriced charge to actually get your damn app on the store before Apple complains to you about it not being suitable.
I can remember when I made an RSS Reader for iOS, spent all that time to find out I had to pay some money. WTF Apple?
These companies spend all this money developing apps for Apple for Apple to turn them down, I don't understand how these companies havne't quit.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:10:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (OldTimeyJunk)CommentsRE[4]: And how would Amazon treat Apple?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482481
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482481What Apple did do, is anticipate that these products could be made for X amount of dollars before any other company even looked at it.

It almost looks like Apple already had their products ready before they could be produced.

That is why it feels (or felt like) the rest is playing catch up.Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:24:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Lennie)CommentsRE[2]: This is SO hardhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482486
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482486Actually, Apple doesn't allow Firefox, iCab/whatever on their phone.

Just Firefox Home, which uses Safari and just gets your bookmarks from 'the cloud' where your Firefox stored it with Firefox Sync and Opera Mini which uses Opera's proxy-servers to generated interactive-images of webpages.

There is only one browser on iPhone and iPad, that is Safari (AFAIK, I don't own such a device so I didn't check. This is just want I read/know about).Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:39:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Lennie)CommentsRE: Amazon forces publishers to cripple priceshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482487
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482487The last time I got a book ?

I just download the ebook 'illegally' (which it isn't in my country) and donate my money directly with a PayPal button to the author on his site.

It was cheaper for me.

And the author got more money from me (the publisher didn't, sorry O'Reilly !)Edited 2011-07-27 22:45 UTCWed, 27 Jul 2011 22:44:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Lennie)CommentsRE[2]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482489
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482489Well you've taken that quote out of context with the rest of my post, but anyway, duly noted to self: not everyone is aware of rhetorical devices.

In fact I think Amazon et al have grounds to complain about anti-competitive practices. The only sticking point would be whether handset market share is critical - what with iOS devices not being nearly as dominant as Apple like to publicise.

No-one is forcing Amazon to put a Kindle app on Apple devices yet they willingly do so knowing Apple's record and knowing the terms and conditions (which Apple may change at will).

So, if there are grounds to complain about anti-competitive practices, does Amazon:

A) report Apple for anti-competitive practices

B) obey Apple and make the following mild announcement on the forum for the Kindle app: "In order to comply with recent policy changes by Apple, we've also removed the "Kindle Store" link from within the app that opened Safari and took you to the Kindle Store. You can still shop as you always have - just open Safari and go to www.amazon.com/kindlestore. If you want, you can bookmark that URL. Your Kindle books will be delivered automatically to your iPad, iPhone or iPod touch, just as before."

Hmm... tricky, I know.

(this comment includes rhetorical devices. Deal with it - or not, if you can't or don't want to. There are still some freedoms we have and we should cherish, celebrate and take advantage of them while we can!)Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:44:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Athlander)CommentsThanks Apple...http://www.osnews.com/thread?482510
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482510... for helping Android platform to offer a better user experience by reducing your own platform's one.
Seriously.

1) First, they will ignore you.
2) Then, they will laugh at you.
3) Then, they will fight you.
4) And then, you win.

Apple, step 3 already. Care to give a look at next one?Edited 2011-07-28 00:06 UTCThu, 28 Jul 2011 00:02:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (phoudoin)CommentsRE[2]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482511
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482511You didn't get the memo, did you?
Your iDevices are leased, not sold.
And your user experience is a leached walk, not a free walk.

People should reads the memo a bit better before opening their wallet. It's not that hidden [agenda] anymore by Apple, really.Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:05:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (phoudoin)CommentsRE[3]: This is SO hardhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482513
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482513

There is only one browser on iPhone and iPad, that is Safari (AFAIK, I don't own such a device so I didn't check. This is just want I read/know about).

Actually I think Opera mini uses the presto engine ( they did have a massive campaign daring apple to block them).

Another browser is Skyfire (whose claim to fame is being Opera mini but with flash).Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:14:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (_txf_)CommentsRE[3]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482514
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482514

No-one is forcing Amazon to put a Kindle app on Apple devices

Correction: on Apple's *customers* devices.

Apple devices are sold. They aren't Apple property, except when they are in Apple Stores or in their stock.

But maybe Apple consider their customers are their property, who know. Maybe it's written in their EULA, somewhere: all you customer are belong to us!

I predict a big surprise, then. Smartphones owners and geeks are far less brand belovers and far more hype followers (or makers, for some). For a company making now near half of its revenue from this kind of customers, they should care more...

B) obey Apple and make the following mild announcement on the forum for the Kindle app: "In order to comply with recent policy changes by Apple, we've also removed the "Kindle Store" link from within the app that opened Safari and took you to the Kindle Store. You can still shop as you always have - just open Safari and go to www.amazon.com/kindlestore. If you want, you can bookmark that URL. Your Kindle books will be delivered automatically to your iPad, iPhone or iPod touch, just as before."

Hmm... tricky, I know.

What would be more funny is to add this notice not on their website but... on the second page of every Kindle electronic books they deliver to Apple devices
;-)Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:20:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (phoudoin)CommentsRE[3]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482516
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482516

No-one is forcing Amazon to put a Kindle app on Apple devices yet they willingly do so knowing Apple's record and knowing the terms and conditions (which Apple may change at will).

True. But users of Apple devices and of Kindle get crippled apps. Where the required operation to buy a book becomes more complicated. If the user still wants it then they can go trough the website; The question is that apple is deliberatly adding annoyance where there previously was none.

Sure, both amazon and the users may accept this. But it still does not make it right or particularly fair.Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:21:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (_txf_)CommentsRE: Shamefulhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482536
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482536My two bits for what it's worth, I've been a long time fan of Cowon. Much better quality than Apple, my last from them is the iAudio J3. Major perk with Cowon is it'll play everything from mp3 to FLAC/OGG.Thu, 28 Jul 2011 04:49:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (marcus0263)CommentsRE[4]: HTML5?http://www.osnews.com/thread?482577
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482577Really? It's a blade splitting a hair. "Splitting hairs" is an expression that is quite common here in the States (and apparently in Thom's corner too). It's another way of saying someone is being pedantic, or that they are arguing incessantly about a minor detail while ignoring the bigger picture. In other words, they don't have a real argument but still want to argue.Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:12:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Morgan)CommentsRE[3]: This is SO hardhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482578
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482578

TBH, he was just pointing out the work around was soo fucking easy that Thom had blown it out of proportion ...

Except it's not exactly easy compared to the method on Android (and Blackberry/WP7/webOS for some apps). For example: On my Android device I have the Kindle reading app. From within the app, I can browse for books, buy books, and download them. I never have to leave the app, and as soon as the book is purchased and synced (usually just a few seconds on either "4G" or WiFi) I can start reading.

On the iPhone/iPod touch I have to open Safari, go to Amazon (and log in if not already), resize the page to suit my screen, find a link for the Kindle store, resize the page again, search, resize, read a summary about the book (possibly dragging the screen around to accomplish this), zoom out to find the purchase button, tap it, tell it to sync to my iDevice, go back to the Springboard and open the Kindle app. This frustrating process is probably less laborious on the iPad due to the screen size. But it's still a hassle compared to just buying through the reader app, which (on other devices) already has an integrated store perfectly adjusted for the screen, and no need to switch apps.

And I'm not making that process up. I did exactly that on an iPod touch and it was annoying as hell. It's much easier to just use iBooks since it works the same way Kindle reader does on Android devices. Do you see now why this might be a big deal for a lot of folks, especially those who are not technically inclined (the target iDevice market)? To them, "Kindle on iPhone is hard, I'll just use iBooks" which automatically makes Apple money and possibly turns a person off of Kindle altogether. Smart, but shitty tactics if you ask me.

Yay ... anyone who makes anti apple comments gets voted up for shit like "Apple is twisted" ... however someone does a little sarcasm and makes light of it and they get down modded to hell.

It truly depends on the article at hand. I've seen on more than one occasion those of us who like Apple products (raising my hand here) get modded down for expressing that sentiment. Thom himself gets accused of being an Apple fanboy in nearly every thread that the company is mentioned, but I think he is a jaded former fan if anything.

Group think ...

Because a lot of us don't agree with you this week? That's life; one day there will be a discussion here that goes along exactly with your way of thinking, and you will get all butthurt because one person doesn't think the way everyone else, including you, does. It goes both ways, my friend.Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:33:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Morgan)CommentsRE[3]: This is SO hardhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482587
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482587

TBH, he was just pointing out the work around was soo fucking easy that Thom had blown it out of proportion ...

And good thing that Apple fanboys aren't known for harping on about minor usability differences, otherwise the comment would have been hypocritical to boot.

Yay ... anyone who makes anti apple comments gets voted up for shit like "Apple is twisted" ... however someone does a little sarcasm and makes light of it and they get down modded to hell.

Or maybe it got modded down because it was an obvious cop-out by a well-known fanboy, trying to ridicule & dismiss a criticism of Apple (rather than actually address it). And given how fond iFanboys are of that tactic, it could practically be a dictionary definition.

Group think ...

Yes, it certainly is... the delusions/fantasies of persecution that iFanboys are prone to, that is.Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:06:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (BallmerKnowsBest)CommentsRE[4]: This is SO hardhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482589
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482589http://www.osnews.com/permalink?482362Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:35:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus)CommentsRE[4]: This is SO hardhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482590
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482590

Because a lot of us don't agree with you this week? That's life; one day there will be a discussion here that goes along exactly with your way of thinking, and you will get all butthurt because one person doesn't think the way everyone else, including you, does. It goes both ways, my friend.

I am not butt hurt ... I was commenting this place has a problem with group think ... that is my opinion and as you have pointed out, not everyone will agree with me.Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus)CommentsRE[3]: This is SO hardhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482635
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482635Doesn't allow iCab? What's this then? http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/icab-mobile-web-browser/id308111628?...Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:57:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (daveak)CommentsRE[5]: This is SO hardhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482650
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482650

I'm sorry, is there something about that comment that we're supposed to find objectionable...?Fri, 29 Jul 2011 01:12:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (BallmerKnowsBest)CommentsRE[6]: This is SO hardhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482687
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482687Yeah, it totally non-constructive ... not remotely amusing ... and that is okay ... however someone with what is a fairly well written bit of sarcasm to make a point ... gets voted down ...Edited 2011-07-29 07:49 UTCFri, 29 Jul 2011 07:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus)CommentsRE: Business Process Patenthttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482753
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482753Apple didn't take anything away from me. They told the ebook sellers that there were to be no more sales which circumvented the app store, which they were doing in order to deprive Apple of their cut of the sales.

It's no different than the rules on ebay. You can't sell an item on ebay and then circumevent ebay when selling more items to the same customer.

Why is Apple always portrayed as the bad guy? For f***'s sake, they allowed competing vendors (Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, etc.) to to put their ebook apps on the iPad and now people are bitching because Apple wants a cut of the book sales? Do you see Amazon allowing Kindle owners to buy books directly from Apple's ebook store? Yeah, didn't think so.

So rather than Apple selling an ebook for $10, they get $3 when it's sold through one of their competitors. In return, the competitors get access to a huge market of iPad owners.Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:55:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[2]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482754
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482754The Kindle came out three years before the iPad and you think that Amazon should sue Apple? For what? Making a more appealing product -- something that can do more than just display books in greyscale?Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:01:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[4]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482755
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482755There's a simple solution: Quit trying to cheat Apple out of their cut from the ebook sales. Every game vendor seems capable of providing in-app purchases that don't circumvent Apple. It's not the user's fault that Amazon wants access to Apple's entire iPad customer base without paying a percentage when they sell books to those users.

How about bitching about something substantial? Amazon won't allow Kindle owners to purchase books from Apple to read on their Kindles. They aren't just demanding a cut from Apple's sales. They want to be the monopolistic provider of ebooks to every owner of a Kindle.Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:07:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[2]: Business Process Patenthttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482760
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482760You are right, it's not as bad as it sounds. However, I think the issue is they tell EVERYBODY what they can and can't do. Users, here's all you can do. Developers, you can only do A, B, C. Vendors, you can only do this. The list of do's and don't they require from the whole ecosystem starts to get a little creepy. You start to think they have a bit of an over-inflated image of themselves. At some point, everyone might just move on to friendlier confines. But probably not. Doesn't mean we can't all whine about it!

I think the defining moment for me was when the first Mac Mini came out. You could choos a Combo Drive (DRD-Rom/ CDRW) or a Super Drive (DVDRW). Coming from the Windows world, I thought I might get the combo drive and later upgrade it to the Super Drive. Only that was not allowed. No one was allowed to upgrade it to a Super Drive. If a user, a 3rd-party, or even an Apple Store did so it voided the warranty. Instead, your only option was to sell yours and purchase one with a Super Drive. I thought line of reasoning was REALLY strange. I also felt the same about non-relaceable batteries in many of their devices. You had to pay someone to replace the battery for you - at a high premium. Wierd!!Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:53:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fretinator)CommentsRE[3]: Business Process Patenthttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482764
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482764There are two models that have emerged in the tablet market: The curated model that Apple uses, where they review apps, weeding out those that are malicious, unstable, or just poorly done. I realize that this has been an imperfect process, but, to me, it's a lot better than the Android alternative, which appears to have been modeled after the wild west.

Apple can only deny warranty repairs if a modification, aftermarket service, or third party part has caused the failure. That's federal law (FTC has info on the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act) and it's the same one that prevent GM from "voiding the warranty" on your car when you install tires you buy from Tire Rack, spark plugs you buy from AutoZone, and have your oil change by Jiffy Lube.

I bought a Mac Mini. Within two days, I had upgraded the hard drive, RAM, and combo drive. But I understood that I'd be on my own if my workmanship, or the parts I chose, caused a failure.

As to batteries, given some of the shoddy cr*p that's being sold on ebay, I understand Apple's desire to not have that stuff put into their products. Guy buys a Chinese battery pack. It fries the contacts in his MacBook's battery connector, he plugs the Apple battery in, takes it for service. The other issue is that making the batteries replaceable increases the size and weight of the device.Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:14:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[7]: This is SO hardhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482767
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482767

Yeah, it totally non-constructive ... not remotely amusing ... and that is okay ...

however someone with what is a fairly well written bit of sarcasm to make a point ... gets voted down ...

Only if you define "well written bit of sarcasm" as paint-by-numbers Strawman arguments combined with lazy, obvious attempts to dodge the point.Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:27:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (BallmerKnowsBest)CommentsRE[4]: Business Process Patenthttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482772
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482772

But I understood that I'd be on my own if my workmanship, or the parts I chose, caused a failure

I wonder who would win in that argument, me or Apple?Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:06:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fretinator)CommentsRE[3]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482800
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482800

The Kindle came out three years before the iPad and you think that Amazon should sue Apple? For what? Making a more appealing product -- something that can do more than just display books in greyscale?

I couldn't think of anything worse than buying an iPad as an eBook reader:
* a backlit LCD would is a horrible strain on the eyes compared to the Kindles eInk.
* a glass screen is a nightmare to read from in bright light where as the Kindles matted display is perfect.
* the battery life on the Kindle runs circles around the iPad.

Sure the iPad is a better multi-functional device than the Kindle, but then the Kindle was never meant to be a tablet PC. However if you're comparing like for like then the iPad is a much worse eBook reader than the Kindle.Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:31:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)CommentsRE[5]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482801
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482801

There's a simple solution: Quit trying to cheat Apple out of their cut from the ebook sales.

It's not Apple's cut though. Apple aren't owed a cut of every sale of every single file that gets loaded onto iOS.

The whole thing is a little like Microsoft demanding a cut for every spreadsheet I save in Excel or report I typed in Word.

I mean, where do you draw the line? Should the manufacturers of the capacitive touch screen also get a cut for every book that's loaded because the iPad would be nothing without one. How about Dennis Ritchie getting a cut for inventing C - the grandfather of the language that's central for the iOS. Surely if Apple can claim rights to an income for a book they had no part in, then Ritchie can have a cut for an OS he had no part in developing?

I know they're absurd examples but the point I'm making is Apple have already charged their commission. Consumers have already bought the device and thus paid for the OS and hardware costs plus mark up. Then the developers have paid for the service to have their apps available on Apples App Store. Both of these I wholeheartedly agree with. However then expecting a percentage of every file loaded and deliberately crippling functions that offer alternative loading mechanisms is completely wrong.Edited 2011-07-29 20:50 UTCFri, 29 Jul 2011 20:37:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)CommentsRE[4]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482802
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482802

I couldn't think of anything worse than buying an iPad as an eBook reader:
* a backlit LCD would is a horrible strain on the eyes compared to the Kindles eInk.

Studies have shown no evidence to support that claim.

* a glass screen is a nightmare to read from in bright light where as the Kindles matted display is perfect.

And the Kindle's display is unreadable in a dark bedroom, which is where I often read at night before going to sleep.

* the battery life on the Kindle runs circles around the iPad.

My house has electricity. I have a charger that works in my car and on my boat. Not an issue for me.

However if you're comparing like for like then the iPad is a much worse eBook reader than the Kindle.

Much of what I read is either technical books with color photos and illustrations, or full color magazines about the hobbies that interest me. The Kindle is worthless for either of those activities, which is why I had no e-reader prior to the iPad. Not everyone's reading it Tom Clancy fiction or romance novels.Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:43:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[5]: Business Process Patenthttp://www.osnews.com/thread?482803
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482803

The whole thing is a little like Microsoft demanding a cut for every spreadsheet I save in Excel or report I typed in Word.

But if those are the terms & conditions for using Excel, then you have to adhere to those terms & conditions if you wish to use Excel.Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:53:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Athlander)CommentsRE[7]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482908
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482908

But if those are the terms & conditions for using Excel, then you have to adhere to those terms & conditions if you wish to use Excel.

Where in Apple's T&C's does it say that you cannot link to your own website in your own application?

On ageing eyes (~40+) that's true, but on younger eyes I am lead to understand that there is still a potential issue.

However trying to use an LCD on the move with bright light reflected and so on would me several magnitudes worse than simply just reading from an LCD in a darkened room

And the Kindle's display is unreadable in a dark bedroom, which is where I often read at night before going to sleep.

So turn a light on like you'd have to do with an old fashioned book.

I managed that when I was a kid. In fact I thought all bedrooms these days came equipped with a piece of technology called a "bed-side lamp" which is ideal for your sort of problem.

My house has electricity. I have a charger that works in my car and on my boat. Not an issue for me.

Regardless, it is still a portability issue that the Kindle wins against the iPad when comparing like for like.
Plus many people like to read on holiday when at the beach, or on the train / plane or even in the bath.
You don't see many electrical hook-ups in those locations.

Much of what I read is either technical books with color photos and illustrations, or full color magazines about the hobbies that interest me. The Kindle is worthless for either of those activities, which is why I had no e-reader prior to the iPad. Not everyone's reading it Tom Clancy fiction or romance novels.

No, but most people are. You're usage is pretty specific and pretty rare compared to most peoples eBook requirements. Thus eInk makes much more sense for the majority of people.Edited 2011-07-31 10:15 UTCSun, 31 Jul 2011 10:07:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)CommentsRE[6]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482914
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482914

On ageing eyes (~40+) that's true, but on younger eyes I am lead to understand that there is still a potential issue.

"Lead to understand" by whom? Please cite your sources for that claim.

"And the Kindle's display is unreadable in a dark bedroom, which is where I often read at night before going to sleep.

So turn a light on like you'd have to do with an old fashioned book.

I managed that when I was a kid. In fact I thought all bedrooms these days came equipped with a piece of technology called a "bed-side lamp" which is ideal for your sort of problem. "Unlike you, I do not sleep alone. I don't want to keep my significant other awake if I decide to read in bed for another half an hour or so after she's ready to drift off.

Of course you can put on a "bed-side lamp" to read. It's not like you're going to keep anyone else awake. You know what's "ideal for your sort of problem"? Single serving frozen dinners.

Plus many people like to read on holiday when at the beach, or on the train / plane or even in the bath.
You don't see many electrical hook-ups in those locations.

The iPad has a 9-10 hour battery life. How long do you spend reading in planes, trains, or the bath?

"
Much of what I read is either technical books with color photos and illustrations, or full color magazines about the hobbies that interest me. The Kindle is worthless for either of those activities, which is why I had no e-reader prior to the iPad. Not everyone's reading it Tom Clancy fiction or romance novels.

No, but most people are. You're usage is pretty specific and pretty rare compared to most peoples eBook requirements. Thus eInk makes much more sense for the majority of people. "Reading magazines is rare? Do you stop and gawk when you see someone reading Popular Photography, Smithsonian, Rolling Stone, Car and Driver, Boating, Motorcyclist, or Wired? The National Directory of Magazines lists over twenty thousand different magazine titles just in the U.S. and Canada. There are far more magazines sold than books.

You are claiming that it's rare for people to read non-fiction books with color photos, drawings, graphs, and charts? Is it shocking to you to learn that normal people read things like travel guides, auto repair manuals, books about photography, and textbooks, all of which contain color photos and/or multi-color illustrations?

Normal people are living life; they are enjoying travel, sports, and hobbies, and reading about those things in full-color, glossy (like the screen of an iPad) magazines and richly illustrated books. That's partly why 29 million iPads have been sold while only 1.5 million Kindles have been sold -- despite the Kindle being sold for twice as long and at a fraction of the price.

P.S. With only 61% of the pixel count of the iPad, the Kindle suffers from the small amount of text that fits on its tiny screen. Coupled with page turning that New York Times columnist David Pogue described as "a bizarre, black-white-black flashing sequence," it is annoying to anyone who reads faster than the typical six year old.Sun, 31 Jul 2011 12:16:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[6]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482918
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482918

"There's a simple solution: Quit trying to cheat Apple out of their cut from the ebook sales.

It's not Apple's cut though. Apple aren't owed a cut of every sale of every single file that gets loaded onto iOS. "

It's their App Store. They set the terms and conditions. If they say that they are owed a cut, then they are owed a cut. If you don't like it, then don't distribute your app through Apple's App Store. What is so confusing about that?

With the iPad having outsold the Kindle at 20 to 1 (and growing), I'm sure that Amazon wants to sell books to Apple's customers. But Apple already sells books through their iTunes store. Amazon didn't pay Apple to distribute their Kindle app. Amazon didn't help to pay for the cost to develop the iPad or to set up the App Store. And now they want to use that app to lure Apple's customers away from the iTunes store for ebook purchases -- and you're angry that Apple wants some compensation? Amazing.

This is no different than a brick and morter store situation. You can't go into a Walmart and hand out ads for your competing business, while not compensating Walmart in any way.Sun, 31 Jul 2011 12:37:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[8]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482921
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482921

Where in Apple's T&amp;C's does it say that you cannot link to your own website in your own application?

11.14 Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to buy the approved content. Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues for approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app

Besides, terms and conditions cannot override law.
If Apples T&amp;Cs are stifling fair competition then Apple should be held accountable.

Apple is distributing their competitor's apps, and all they ask is a cut for in-app sales!

Amazon is stifling fair competition. Is Amazon distributing an Apple iBooks app to Kindle owners, allowing them to buy from the iTunes store? Are they distributing Barnes and Noble's app? Are they distributing Kobo's e-reader app? Where's your anger over that? Where is your anger that Amazon is using their Kindle to monopolize ebook sales to Kindle customers?

Face it: This isn't about logic or reason with you. It's all about your hatred of Apple.Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:01:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[7]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482922
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482922Sorry for the formatting, but OSnews hosed the nested quotes. They looked fine in the preview, and, in fact, I adjusted the line spacing to make everything neat and readable. But after submission, it italicized nested quotes rather than showing them as quotes.Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:05:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[7]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482929
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482929fmaxwell,

Clearly an ereader isn't for you, that's fine. But there's no sense in denying the strengths it has over other tablets including the ipad.

If apple sold an e-ink tablet, chances are you would immediately change your tune just because apple was behind it. I'm getting really tired of this kind of behavior, where people are overly proud of their favorite companies and fail to think objectively, though I suppose it is human nature.Sun, 31 Jul 2011 17:34:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Alfman)CommentsRE[8]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482932
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482932

But there's no sense in denying the strengths it has over other tablets including the ipad.

I did not deny that it had strengths over other tablets. I didn't deny that it had a longer battery life or that the screen was much more readable in bright light. I never said that its lighter weight, lower cost, greater resistance to heat, or available free 3G aren't advantages either.

I simply argued that the advantages don't, for most people, outweigh the disadvantages of the smaller screen, lack of color, and its monopolistic nature (you can only buy ebooks from Amazon for it).

If apple sold an e-ink tablet, chances are you would immediately change your tune just because apple was behind it.

Apple makes, and has made, many products that I don't find to be particularly appealing. Don't presume to know how I would react to an Apple e-ink tablet.

I'm getting really tired of this kind of behavior, where people are overly proud of their favorite companies and fail to think objectively, though I suppose it is human nature.

I laid out clear, rational reasons why I, and apparently millions of others, prefer the iPad to e-ink tablets. Those reasons had nothing to do with the company logos on the devices, and everything to do with the capability of the devices.

If you've accomplished so little in your life that you are "overly proud of [your] favorite companies," companies with which you have no affiliation other than as a consumer, you have my pity.Sun, 31 Jul 2011 18:52:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[9]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482936
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482936fmaxwell,

"I simply argued that the advantages don't, for most people, outweigh the disadvantages of the smaller screen, lack of color..."

It sounded like you were downplaying the utility of those things for people who found them important, but if that was not your intention, then ok.

" and its monopolistic nature (you can only buy ebooks from Amazon for it)."

Apple supporters have absolutely no wiggle room to criticize others about this though.

"Apple makes, and has made, many products that I don't find to be particularly appealing. Don't presume to know how I would react to an Apple e-ink tablet."

If that doesn't describe you then I am glad, however then you should no doubt recognize the typical hypocrisy from the apple fanboys whom I speak of.

"I laid out clear, rational reasons why I, and apparently millions of others, prefer the iPad to e-ink tablets. Those reasons had nothing to do with the company logos on the devices, and everything to do with the capability of the devices."

You're definitely showing quite a lot of pro-apple bias though, almost all your criticisms of amazon apply equally if not more so to apple.

If this was merely a tactic to balance out the conversation, then ok. However if you really believe that amazon is guilty of those things and apple is not, then you may be more of an apple fanboy that you care to admit.Edited 2011-07-31 20:08 UTCSun, 31 Jul 2011 20:06:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Alfman)CommentsRE[9]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482941
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482941

Face it: This isn't about logic or reason with you. It's all about your hatred of Apple.

GET OFF YOUR FUCKING HIGH HORSE!!
I'm as so sick and fucking tired of discussions on here always being lowered to childish drivel like that bullshit.

If you want to make a point, make it. But don't hide behind some pseudo-intellectual bullshit about myself or anyone else being blinkered to reason because of a petty alliance to one company over another.

So please can we get back to talking about technology and leave the second-rate psychology to another news site.

11.14 Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to buy the approved content. Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues for approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app

Fair enough then. However I still don't think that's fair and I still think Amazon et al could have a case against it for anti-competitive practices. However I'm not a lawyer.

Apple is distributing their competitor's apps, and all they ask is a cut for in-app sales!

But Apple have no involvement for those in-app sales. They don't create the content, they didn't distribute the content, they have no involvement in it what-so-ever thus they have no entitlement to it what-so-ever.

Apple is basically forcing their customers to use Apples own distribution channels or pay a percentage for the privilege of using their own distribution channels. It's little better than the strong arm tactics that MS and IBM do.

If people opted for Apples distribution channels because they preferred it, then that's different. Apple can charge what they want and provide whatever service they want as businesses have opted into that service knowing the service they're going to receive. It would have been an entirely open deal. However to force peoples hand the way Apple do, it's completely unethical in my opinion.

Amazon is stifling fair competition. Is Amazon distributing an Apple iBooks app to Kindle owners, allowing them to buy from the iTunes store? Are they distributing Barnes and Noble's app? Are they distributing Kobo's e-reader app? Where's your anger over that? Where is your anger that Amazon is using their Kindle to monopolize ebook sales to Kindle customers?

If the Kindle had the same policy for it's loadable apps (I will admit I've not had any experience in loadable apps for that eBook reader. I only know about the books and hardware specs), then I would also complain about that.

In fact I personally wouldn't shop from Amazon if I had a choice because of their aggressive policy on DRM - which something Apple get right. But clearly I'm faking an opinion here because I'm just a biased Apple hater....sorry back to raging again. However your comment was moronic to say the least.Sun, 31 Jul 2011 20:52:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)CommentsRE[7]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482944
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482944

"Lead to understand" by whom? Please cite your sources for that claim.

You mean like how you cited your sources? lol

Unlike you, I do not sleep alone.

No need to get catty. I have a girlfriend ans she likes to dress up. We share a bed and occasionally have sex too.

I'll assume you wanted to know all these details seeming as you brought up my personal life.

I don't want to keep my significant other awake if I decide to read in bed for another half an hour or so after she's ready to drift off.

Surely the back light on an iPad is just as bad as having a bedside light on in that respect?!

I can't speak for your "significant other", but my girlfriend can't sleep if I'm playing on my phone and that chucks out half the light that a tablet would.

Of course you can put on a "bed-side lamp" to read. It's not like you're going to keep anyone else awake. You know what's "ideal for your sort of problem"? Single serving frozen dinners.

Lay off the oestrogen will you; I'm trying to have a mature discussion here.

Reading magazines is rare? Do you stop and gawk when you see someone reading Popular Photography, Smithsonian, Rolling Stone, Car and Driver, Boating, Motorcyclist, or Wired? The National Directory of Magazines lists over twenty thousand different magazine titles just in the U.S. and Canada. There are far more magazines sold than books.

There is this little thing called "context".
As far as I know, (and I'm open to being proved wrong if you can provide hard statistical evidence), magazines are seldom bought and read on eBook-like devices compared to novels.
These devices are built and sold to people who are heavy readers. It might be quite a specific niche, but it's still a huge market. eMagazine sales, in comparison to eBook sales, are significantly lower.

You are claiming that it's rare for people to read non-fiction books with color photos, drawings, graphs, and charts?

No, I said it's rare for people to read technical manuals (which you specified) in comparison to novels.
Again, please don't drop the context to just win an argument as you'll ultimately just make this whole discussion pointless.

Normal people are living life; they are enjoying travel, sports, and hobbies, and reading about those things in full-color, glossy (like the screen of an iPad) magazines and richly illustrated books. That's partly why 29 million iPads have been sold while only 1.5 million Kindles have been sold -- despite the Kindle being sold for twice as long and at a fraction of the price.

Most people who bought an iPad didn't buy it because they were specifically just after an eBook reader. Again, you're failing to compare like for like.

If you wanted something that could read magazines AND surf the internet, then yes a tablet such as the iPad is a better purchase. However if you JUST want to read books then it isn't.

I appreciate your specific usage means you happen to prefer the iPad. That's fine. We all have a preference in these things. However don't think that just because you prefer LCD to eInk that everyone else should or would. And, most importantly, don't lower discussions to personal jabs as you just undermine your whole credibility - as a wise man once said: if you can't reason with logic then you have no reason to begin with. Sun, 31 Jul 2011 21:12:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)CommentsRE[7]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482949
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482949

It's their App Store. They set the terms and conditions. If they say that they are owed a cut, then they are owed a cut. If you don't like it, then don't distribute your app through Apple's App Store. What is so confusing about that?

But that's the point: Apple are also trying to get a cut from products not sold via the App Store.

I don't have a problem with however much they choose to charge for use of their distribution mechanism. The issue I have is charging people not to use it as well.

With the iPad having outsold the Kindle at 20 to 1 (and growing), I'm sure that Amazon wants to sell books to Apple's customers. But Apple already sells books through their iTunes store.

...and? There is this thing call "competition".
Just because someone builds a stall on my road selling lemonade, it doesn't mean I can't do the same as well.

Amazon didn't help to pay for the cost to develop the iPad or to set up the App Store.

No, but the former is covered in iPad sales and the latter should be covered in app sales.
Sales of ebooks et al does not come under either of those two categorise you described.

And now they want to use that app to lure Apple's customers away from the iTunes store for ebook purchases -- and you're angry that Apple wants some compensation? Amazing.

Again, how does buying a book harm Apple's hardware sales or App sales? It simply doesn't. So your logic is flawed.

This is no different than a brick and morter store situation. You can't go into a Walmart and hand out ads for your competing business, while not compensating Walmart in any way.

Well actually legally you can.

However the situation is a little more complicated than your example as walmart don't charge you entry into their supermarket nor dictate that rival shops pay them a percentage for sales that didn't even take place in walmart.Sun, 31 Jul 2011 21:42:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)CommentsRE[8]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482951
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482951

Sorry for the formatting, but OSnews hosed the nested quotes.

I think you should be apologising for your juvenile personal attacks more than the formatting, but then maybe I wrongly mistook this playground for being a mature technology debate....Sun, 31 Jul 2011 21:46:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)CommentsRE[10]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482961
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482961

It sounded like you were downplaying the utility of those things for people who found them important, but if that was not your intention, then ok.

Since I made it a point to even name advantages that the other poster had not mentioned, it's pretty clear that I'm not trying to downplay anything.

Apple supporters have absolutely no wiggle room to criticize others about this though.

My iPad has ebook readers from Amazon (Kindle), Barnes & Noble (Nook), and Kobo, all advertised on and, and downloaded from, Apple's App Store. To the best of my knowledge, Apple charged no fees to any of those competitors.

By contrast, I see no Amazon-provided facility through which Kindle users can install ebook readers from Amazon's competitors (correct me if I am wrong, as I don't profess to be expert on Amazon's Kindle marketplace). In light of that, I believe that there is plenty of room to criticize about monopolistic practices.

You're definitely showing quite a lot of pro-apple bias though, almost all your criticisms of amazon apply equally if not more so to apple.

Again, how?

Does Amazon distribute an Apple-supplied iBook app for the Kindle? No.

Does Amazon provide a means by which their users can purchase and read ebooks from Apple, or any other competing vendor? No.

Has Amazon provided a huge marketplace to Apple in which to sell ebooks? No.

Yet Apple provides all of those things for Amazon in return is a cut from sales of ebooks. Amazon has a big headline on their web site "Newspapers and magazines in color on iPad and iPhone." It sure sounds like Amazon recognizes the importance of color, even if some of their vocal customers do not.

Think about this: Apple has sold 29 million iPads, over 100 million iPhones (as of March 2011), and tons (how's that for specificity?) of iPod Touchs. Had Apple played hardball, prohibiting the distribution of competing ebook readers through the App Store, Amazon would be stuck trying to market to their 1.5 million Kindle buyers. Instead, they have access to Apple's massive consumer market. In return, if they want the convenience of in-app purchases, they pay a percentage to Apple.

Siding with the company that wants a cut from competitor's in-app sales versus siding with a company that prohibits competitors from selling at all hardly sounds like bias.Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[9]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482963
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482963

I think you should be apologising for your juvenile personal attacks more than the formatting, but then maybe I wrongly mistook this playground for being a mature technology debate....

Don't get all uppity with me after your dripping sarcasm about the "bed-side lamp" being "ideal for [my] sort of problem." . You wanted to start with the childish attacks and now you're all pissy when you come out on the losing end. Get over it, wanker (as they say in your country).Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:56:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[8]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482966
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482966

But that's the point: Apple are also trying to get a cut from products not sold via the App Store.

If you go to Amazon's web site and buy an ebook, Apple does not charge a cent to Amazon or you. But it's less convenient for you; Apple wants you to prefer the convenience of in-app purchasing of ebooks from Apple's iTunes store over web-based purchases from their competitors. Or they want to get a percentage of the competitor's in-app sales, so that they make more money. It's called a revenue model.

...and? There is this thing call "competition".
Just because someone builds a stall on my road selling lemonade, it doesn't mean I can't do the same as well.

It's not "your road." It's a public road. The Apple App Store is not publicly owned. Apple can set up whatever terms they like. You tell someone that they can set up a lemonade stand on your lawn if you get a cut from the sales. If they don't like it, they can't just set up the stand and then refuse to pay you.

" Amazon didn't pay Apple to distribute their Kindle app.

Why should they? It's Apples app.
"
That's idiotic and blatantly false. Amazon wrote the app and own all legal rights to it. Their copyrights and trademarks are all over it. Apple had nothing to do with the creation of the app and they don't own any part of it.

Furthermore, Apple didn't pay Amazon to distribute their app either. So your point is moot.

Why would Apple pay Amazon when Amazon is providing the Kindle app that takes sales away from Apple? Is critical thinking that hard for you?

" And now they want to use that app to lure Apple's customers away from the iTunes store for ebook purchases -- and you're angry that Apple wants some compensation? Amazing.

Again, how does buying a book harm Apple's hardware sales or App sales? It simply doesn't. So your logic is flawed.
"
Stop being purposely obtuse. Buying a book from Amazon, rather than buying the same book from Apple's iTunes store, harms Apple. I specifically cited the iTunes store which is where they sell books (not apps or hardware), so stop making straw man arguments.

"This is no different than a brick and morter store situation. You can't go into a Walmart and hand out ads for your competing business, while not compensating Walmart in any way.

Well actually legally you can.
"
No, you cannot. Walmart prohibits solicitation in their stores. End of story.

However the situation is a little more complicated than your example as walmart don't charge you entry into their supermarket

Apple didn't charge Amazon for entry into the App Store. Nor do they charge customers to enter the App store.

nor dictate that rival shops pay them a percentage for sales that didn't even take place in walmart.

Amazon doesn't want to pay Apple a percentage, so they removed the in-app purchasing capability. They understand that it's Apple's App Store and that Apple has decided to charge for in-app purchases when the apps are distributed through Apple's App Store.Sun, 31 Jul 2011 23:44:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[10]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482969
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482969

Don't get all uppity with me after your dripping sarcasm about the "bed-side lamp" being "ideal for [my] sort of problem." . You wanted to start with the childish attacks and now you're all pissy when you come out on the losing end. Get over it, wanker (as they say in your country).

lol, so you think one sarcastic yet innocent comment warrants the moronic level you stooped too?

lol, so you think one sarcastic yet innocent comment warrants the moronic level you stooped too?

You're just trolling, so give up. Your comments grow more labored and outlandish at each turn. You tried to be insulting and sarcastic to your superior and you got your ass handed to you. Move along.Sun, 31 Jul 2011 23:55:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fmaxwell)CommentsRE[9]: Not surprising, really!http://www.osnews.com/thread?482972
http://www.osnews.com/thread?482972

That's idiotic and blatantly false. Amazon wrote the app and own all legal rights to it. Their copyrights and trademarks are all over it. Apple had nothing to do with the creation of the app and they don't own any part of it.

I was replying to your comment about an Apple app for the Kindle, not Amazon's app for the iPhone. If you meant the latter then you phrased your comment wrong and hence the confusion here.

Why would Apple pay Amazon when Amazon is providing the Kindle app that takes sales away from Apple? Is critical thinking that hard for you?

No, but clearly it is for you seeming as you gaffed up your earlier post which lead us to this confusion.

(oh look, we can both play the petty insults game - look how productive it is. any chance you can keep this discussion mature?)

Stop being purposely obtuse. Buying a book from Amazon, rather than buying the same book from Apple's iTunes store, harms Apple. I specifically cited the iTunes store which is where they sell books (not apps or hardware), so stop making straw man arguments.

lol, you lose an argument so you move the goal posts and then claim victory.

I've already pointed out how the various costs you described are already covered with the various costs Apple charge. However feel free to ignore those arguments and throw petty insults as has been the basis of your whole discussion thus far.

No, you cannot. Walmart prohibits solicitation in their stores. End of story.

Walmart != law.

So I repeat, legally you can. Walmart might request you to leave, but you're legally entitled to do so.

Apple didn't charge Amazon for entry into the App Store. Nor do they charge customers to enter the App store.

That's complete bullshit. Submitting apps to Apple's App Store is not a free process.
Now I'm not arguing against the cost as I think that charge is fully justified. However the fact remains it's not a free process thus the earlier point I made.

Amazon doesn't want to pay Apple a percentage, so they removed the in-app purchasing capability. They understand that it's Apple's App Store and that Apple has decided to charge for in-app purchases when the apps are distributed through Apple's App Store.

I know this. You're just reiterating the same bloody point I've been making. So well done for stating the obvious.

However, and the point I keep arguing: I think Apple expecting a percentage for documents not affiliated with Apple nor downloaded via Apple's distribution mechanisms is wrong. And then expecting developers who actually wish to use their own distribution mechanisms to cripple their own applications to the point where it offers significant and unfair advantages to Apples own distribution mechanisms is anti-competitive and abuse of the "walled garden" that they'd locked consumers into.

Like I said before, if developers which to utilise Apples distribution mechanisms, then I can't see why Apple shouldn't charge. But to force users into it is just plain wrong.Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:11:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Laurence)Comments